A HISTORY OF DURHAM 



centred more in Yorkshire. In Hart lay the port of Hartlepool, then and till 

 the seventeenth century the great port of the Palatinate.^" 



Pudsey did not, however, retain Sadberge or the earldom long, for four 

 years later he was deprived on the ground that the loss of the king's first seal, 

 with which the charters had been sealed, invalidated the grants. Pudsey 

 resisted, but when on the point of yielding, he died on 3 March, 1 195. 



The fifty years of Pudsey's rule form one of the most important periods 

 in the history of Durham. Succeeding in 1 153, when the bishopric had 

 hardly recovered from terrible cruelties indicted by the Conqueror, the effects 

 of which had been intensified by the Scottish raids and disorders following 

 on the Cumin episode, Pudsey's strong but beneficent sway left Durham at his 

 death prosperous and contented. For fifty years the bishopric had enjoyed 

 peace, and in whatever light Pudsey's action in 1 173 may be regarded it had at 

 least spared the Palatinate the ravages which the neighbouring districts suffered 

 at the hands of the Scots. Notwithstanding the centralizing tendencies during 

 the reign of Henry II, he managed not only to preserve but also to develop 

 the Palatinate privileges. 



He had every opportunity and many qualifications for becoming a very great man, and in spite of his 

 failures, he left a mark upon the north of England which is not yet effaced.™ 



Philip of Poitou, Pudsey's successor, offered Richard 500 marks for the 

 restoration of Sadberge. The offer was accepted, but Richard died before the 

 transaction was completed, and the bishop had to pay 1,200 marks to King 

 John for confirmation of Sadberge, and for liberty to disforest the woods of 

 Crake and Cliffe, and that he might be quit of the aid the king sought from 

 the whole of England." 



After Bishop Philip's death in 1208 the see remained vacant for nine 

 years, during which period it was entrusted first to Robert Vipont and then to 

 Philip of Ulecote.*^ 



" It is somewhat difficult to understand the bishop's position in regard to the Bruce and Balliols' possessions 

 between the Tyne and the Tees. King Richard's Charter, Script. Tr,?/, App. No. 40, granted the bishop (l) 

 the manor of Sadberge with the wapentake pertaining to that manor, (2) the service {servitium) of Peter Carew 

 of one knight's fee, the service of Thomas of Ammundaville of one knight's fee, and the service of Godfrey 

 Baard of two-thirds of a knight's fee, to hold the same as the bishop holds his other lands and knights' fees in 

 the bishopric. No mention is made of the Balliols' 5 J knights' fees or Bruce's 2, or of the other fees set out in 

 Hinde, op. cit. 275. John's charter dated 4 March, 1200, grants the manor and wapentake of Sadberge 

 without any restriction as to knights' fees, ' Sicut Richardus frater noster in propria manu sua habebat.' Mickle- 

 ton MSS. i, 102 ij'. Hutchinson, //w/. of Dur. i, 230, gives rather a mutilated transcript of the charter. 

 In the sequel we shall find disputes arising between the bishop and the Balliols and the Bruces as to their 

 respective rights and obligations. In regard to the Bruce fee it should be mentioned that in I 201 John granted 

 a charter erecting Hartlepool into a borough (Surtees, //;V/. of Dur.'w, 386), notwithstanding the bishop's 

 jura regalia. As to the scutage payable after the transfer by the Balliol and Bruce fees (Hinde, op. cit. 278, 

 281) in 1211-I2 the ReJ Bk. of Exch. (Rolls Ser.), 608, states that the bishop of Durham had ten knights' fees 

 in the wapentake of Sadberge. ^ Stubbs, Pref to Hoveden, op. cit. iii, p. xxxv. 



*' Reg. Kellait! (Rolls Ser.), iii, Introd. 9. There is a transcript of the charter in the Mickleton MSS. i, 102 d. 

 — .the copy given in Hutchinson, Hist, of Dur. i, 230, is inaccurate, the grant includes 'Manerium de Sadburga 

 cum Wapentagiis et feodis militum . . . sicut Rex Richardus frater nos'er in propria manu habebat.' This 

 would appear to vest all the knights' fees in the bishop. For details of the acquisition of Sadberge by the 

 bishops of Durham, see Reg. Kellaw (Rolls Ser.), i, Introd. 68-71 ; ibid, iii, Introd. g ; Hodgson Hinde, Hist. 

 ofNorthumb. 230, 273. 



'Mt is somewhat difficult accurately to ascertain the relative position of these two. In April, 120S, Vipont 

 was appointed {Rot. Pat. (Rec. Com.), i\b) and appears to have actually taken possession as cu%\.o%, FeoJ. (Surtees 

 Soc), 232. He seems, however, to have soon been replaced by Ulecote, for In April, I 20g, the king addressed a 

 writ to Aimeric archdeacon of Durham and Ulecote as guardians of the bishopric {Rot. Pat. (Rec. Com.), gi). 

 Thenceforward Ulecote appears to have remained in charge, for though in August, 1215, the castle of Durham 

 had to be handed over to Vipont {Rot. Lit. Pat. (Rec. Com.), 152^), Ulecote is a little later still treated as the 

 king's representative {Rot. Lit. Claus. [Rec. Com.], 247). 



144 



